The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, expansion and relocation, and NHL revenues.

This opens up another option for the players. The owners declare an impasse. The union does not strike. They return to work under the owner's system but they refuse to have anything to do with audit procedures while filing lawsuits against the league and the imposed agreement.

They play 100% of the regular season, cash 100% of their paycheques and walk off the job just before the playoffs start. If they want to be really perverse, they report back to work the following September. The owners can have their salary cap under that scenario, but they can't have a Stanley Cup Tournament.

Tom

And then since the league does not have any playoff revenue, the salary cap will be further reduced since it would be set at X% of revenue. The players would be further reducing thier pay by doing that. Not to mention how the fans would react to that kind of move, considering over 75% of the fans support the owners in the current state of affairs....

An interesting article. Geez, I started reading this stuff and now my brain hurts.
Man im becoming geeky. I like the page name - Hardball.

My little brain struggles with stuff? Any legal mumbo jumbo interpreters that can tell me if they are saying anything here?

Here was ian interesting line

Declare impasse
union decertifies but returns
pa and managament spend year in courts
players strike at end of regular season as they have played year without a contract
oh yay
maybe Gretzky builds an arena on his golf course and televises playoffs where players are playing for beer and gatorade boy and they televise on ppv

Out of context, not completely analogous, likely invalid precedent, ignores the appeal, and this qoute only a small snippet, but is it saying anything relevant? A waiver theory? Over my head.

There were some mixed signals in the articles. Here was one

Break the union? Surely not.

Here was another one

you read this stuff and you wonder if this thing is destined to be settled or time-wasted in the courts over arcane matters of waiver and the labour boards authority over the dynamics of collective bargaining? At the least, it seems to suggest implementation after impasse will be a strategy fraught with legal peril.

Lawyers paradise.

Declare impasse - could happen
union decertifies but returns - could happen
pa and managament spend year in courts - play would continue
players strike at end of regular season as they have played year without a contract
oh yay - won't happen
maybe Gretzky builds an arena on his golf course and televises playoffs where players are playing for beer and gatorade boy and they televise on ppv - where do sign up? - anything gretz does i'm in - he's gold -

And then since the league does not have any playoff revenue, the salary cap will be further reduced since it would be set at X% of revenue. The players would be further reducing thier pay by doing that. Not to mention how the fans would react to that kind of move, considering over 75% of the fans support the owners in the current state of affairs....

So what? The objective is to win the labour dispute. They won't get stuck with a percentage of revenues if they win the dispute. The owners win dick even if they do declare an impasse and impose a settlement. They can open the doors, but they can't keep them open. The players can have rotating strikes, too.

Brian Burke alluded to this point when he tried to act as peacemaker. How on earth could NHL revenues be driven to $1 billion from $2 billion? We're looking at it.

If you think either the players or the owners care about the fan in this dispute, you are sadly mistaken. I think it is hilarious when some fans think ticket prices will come down under a different CBA. Even Bettman talks about moving forward as partners to grow the game's revenues. Both players and owners want the revenues maximised. Somehow you seem to have gotten the idea this dispute is about making the league fairer for the smaller markets and the game more affordable for the fan. I think that is a bizarre idea.

This dispute is about money. It is about money now and money that will be generated over the next ten years. Hundreds of millions are at stake. Both sides are prepared to do whatever it takes. We don't count as long as the hard core fanbase largely believes the owners are justified.

I'm not sure if it's legal in Canada. I know for sure in BC it's not allowed. By law, you can't bring in replacements if you already have workers there. Unless it's only in the case of a strike...

The laws applies both to legal strikes and lockouts in Canada. Canadian Federal labour regulations don't exclude hiring replacement workers as long as it's not done to undermine the union as a bargaining unit, however it's specifically banned under provincial law in some provinces. For example in BC:

So what? The objective is to win the labour dispute. They won't get stuck with a percentage of revenues if they win the dispute. The owners win dick even if they do declare an impasse and impose a settlement. They can open the doors, but they can't keep them open. The players can have rotating strikes, too.

Brian Burke alluded to this point when he tried to act as peacemaker. How on earth could NHL revenues be driven to $1 billion from $2 billion? We're looking at it.

If you think either the players or the owners care about the fan in this dispute, you are sadly mistaken. I think it is hilarious when some fans think ticket prices will come down under a different CBA. Even Bettman talks about moving forward as partners to grow the game's revenues. Both players and owners want the revenues maximised. Somehow you seem to have gotten the idea this dispute is about making the league fairer for the smaller markets and the game more affordable for the fan. I think that is a bizarre idea.

This dispute is about money. It is about money now and money that will be generated over the next ten years. Hundreds of millions are at stake. Both sides are prepared to do whatever it takes. We don't count as long as the hard core fanbase largely believes the owners are justified.

So what? The objective is to win the labour dispute. They won't get stuck with a percentage of revenues if they win the dispute. The owners win dick even if they do declare an impasse and impose a settlement. They can open the doors, but they can't keep them open. The players can have rotating strikes, too.

Brian Burke alluded to this point when he tried to act as peacemaker. How on earth could NHL revenues be driven to $1 billion from $2 billion? We're looking at it.

If you think either the players or the owners care about the fan in this dispute, you are sadly mistaken. I think it is hilarious when some fans think ticket prices will come down under a different CBA. Even Bettman talks about moving forward as partners to grow the game's revenues. Both players and owners want the revenues maximised. Somehow you seem to have gotten the idea this dispute is about making the league fairer for the smaller markets and the game more affordable for the fan. I think that is a bizarre idea.

This dispute is about money. It is about money now and money that will be generated over the next ten years. Hundreds of millions are at stake. Both sides are prepared to do whatever it takes. We don't count as long as the hard core fanbase largely believes the owners are justified.

Tom

Of course it's about money, but your strategy of rotating strikes will do nothing for the players in the long run except kill fan interest and reduce any potential salary in the future. How many casual fans are going to buy tickets or merchandise if the players are going to go on strike repeatedly, especially for the playoffs? The players and the league need all the casual fans it can get.

If the league does declare an impasse and implement their last offer, which I assume will include a salary cap linked to revenue, every time the players strike, they will decrease fan interest and that will decrease revenue. Decreasing revenue will hurt the owners, but will hurt the players more since the next years payroll will be linked to the decreased revenues.

I'm assuming that the owners will also be decreasing ticket prices to try to keep the casual fans coming to the games, but I'm probably mistaken...

There will be even more confrontational negotiations, I can see them now...

Player: I think I deserve $X because I scored so many points last season...

Owner: But you didn't play in the playoffs, so I can only offer you $Y, with much of the salary in the form of bonuses for games played, points, and playoff appearances...

Meanwhile, they wil be argueing in court for who knows how long.

Once the owners declare an impasse, it will change the entire context of the CBA negotiations. (of course that's just my interpretation of the information posted) Instead of the owners trying to get the players to budge from their current position and make significant concessions, the players will have to get concesions from the owners.

But, you apparently know way more than me, so I'll just sit back and see how things play out...

This opens up another option for the players. The owners declare an impasse. The union does not strike. They return to work under the owner's system but they refuse to have anything to do with audit procedures while filing lawsuits against the league and the imposed agreement.

They play 100% of the regular season, cash 100% of their paycheques and walk off the job just before the playoffs start. If they want to be really perverse, they report back to work the following September. The owners can have their salary cap under that scenario, but they can't have a Stanley Cup Tournament.

Tom

You are assuming the NHL isn't awake to these types of plans. They could draw the payments out over the course of the season defined from the start of the regular season to June 31. The final game of the Stanley cup play offs would then be protected by 2 or 3 weeks pay. The later the players striked the more damage they do their own pay packets and the less to the owners.

Declare impasse
union decertifies but returns
pa and managament spend year in courts
players strike at end of regular season as they have played year without a contract
oh yay
maybe Gretzky builds an arena on his golf course and televises playoffs where players are playing for beer and gatorade boy and they televise on ppv

I doubt they would risk decertifion because as soon as they do the NHL would be looking to implement a new labour agreement with a friendlier players union. It could decide to completely ignore the "new" NHLPA even if they do recertify.

Seriously, what happens to the legality of the strike if the NHLPA decertifies? That would open the way for all sorts of oddities. BC prohibits using scabs when a union is on strike. No NHLPA = no union. So does that open the way for the Canucks to hire scabs?

Decertification is a very, very risky move, if the union decertifies you know its run out of ideas because that is the last throw of the dice for it.

Well, maybe it is. Crazy actions for crazy times. Its not the only thing that can happen though. It would be a worst case nightmare come true, not a strategy. The strategy is to find a solution. Not impose your will.

Seriously, what happens to the legality of the strike if the NHLPA decertifies?

What strike are you talking about? There are no oddities if the NHLPA decertifies. The NHL draft is illegal, the NHL contract is illegal and the players can hire themselves out to whoever wants to hire them.

Quote:

Decertification is a very, very risky move, if the union decertifies you know its run out of ideas because that is the last throw of the dice for it.

And the players would be better off than they would be under the latest NHL offer.

So what? The objective is to win the labour dispute. They won't get stuck with a percentage of revenues if they win the dispute. The owners win dick even if they do declare an impasse and impose a settlement. They can open the doors, but they can't keep them open. The players can have rotating strikes, too.

Brian Burke alluded to this point when he tried to act as peacemaker. How on earth could NHL revenues be driven to $1 billion from $2 billion? We're looking at it.

If you think either the players or the owners care about the fan in this dispute, you are sadly mistaken. I think it is hilarious when some fans think ticket prices will come down under a different CBA. Even Bettman talks about moving forward as partners to grow the game's revenues. Both players and owners want the revenues maximised. Somehow you seem to have gotten the idea this dispute is about making the league fairer for the smaller markets and the game more affordable for the fan. I think that is a bizarre idea.

This dispute is about money. It is about money now and money that will be generated over the next ten years. Hundreds of millions are at stake. Both sides are prepared to do whatever it takes. We don't count as long as the hard core fanbase largely believes the owners are justified.

Tom

I just found an interesting article concerning stikes in the CBA. I can't see how the NHL would not insist on a similar article in any new CBA...

ARTICLE 7
No Strike, No Discrimination and Other Undertakings
7.1. (a) Neither the NHLPA nor any player shall authorize, encourage, or engage in any strike, work stoppage, slowdown or other concerted interference with the activities of any Club or of the League during the term of this Agreement. Nor shall any player decline to play or practice or in concert with any other person otherwise interfere with the activities of any Club or the League, or individually or in concert encourage any other player to do so because of picketing or a labor dispute involving any other labor organization. The NHLPA shall not support or condone any action of any player which is not in accordance with this Section 7.01 and the NHLPA shall exert reasonable efforts to induce compliance therewith.

(b) Neither the League nor any Club shall engage in a lockout during the term of this Agreement.

What strike are you talking about? There are no oddities if the NHLPA decertifies. The NHL draft is illegal, the NHL contract is illegal and the players can hire themselves out to whoever wants to hire them.

And the players would be better off than they would be under the latest NHL offer.

Tom

Some would. Many wouldn't.

Here is one way things could play out under the everyone is a UFA scenario.

The NYRs and Wings will dump the older vets and sign guys in their primes. This would improve their playoff chances and limit any middle payroll teams chances. They could boost their teams payrolls to $70m-90m+ banking on playoff success and improved ratings/merchandise. Not a lot of point going higher, the revenue isn't likely to be there.

How many teams would bother keeping minor leaguers on the payroll? If they really need one they'll just sign them mid-season on a per game basis, then dump them. They can keep their rosters trimmed this way and won't be encumbered by minor league salaries or responsibilities.

Veterans won't make out like bandits. There are in the same market space as Igilna and Lecavalier. They'll get paid on merit not reputation.

Guys like Crosby and Overckin might get picked up by mid-sized or large clubs because they are elite talents. The better prospects might find a home on the weak clubs playing for $250-300K/y. As for the best of the rest there is not much point paying very much for them, they are only going to leave you for the $5m NYR or TO offers if they become good. So exploit them while you can. Where else are they going to go, the AHL? Back to juniors?

Just how much do you think the Penguins or Nashville would have to offer for contracts for what is left over? $100K-500K might be enough, its either them, Europe or the AHL. They could run a team for $5-10m salary if they wanted to be ******. They'd suck mightily but they'd be cheap and have no reason to spend more since they can't win and don't have any prospects left to protect. Why would they bother offering anything more than AHL wages + 50%. Eventually they'd probably fold from lack of fan interest after a few years. Watching a terrible team get beaten 10-1 every game can do that. Then again, maybe they could run a team of goons and try and turn it into a blood sport. That could bring in some fans, they'd lose 20-0 instead, but who wouldn't want to see Brookbank & Worrell pounding Kariya, Naslund and Sakic in a bloody pulp for scoring 5 goals each.

Collapsing teams, collapsing fan base, more players per job leading to oversupply of players, many of whom would be desperate to sign whatever they get offered.

14 teams collapsing would be good. Give it 6 years and see what happens. Chinese proverb "It's better to be a dog in a peaceful time that be a man in a chaotic period."

Then again everything might be rosey with 14 teams gone. The Rangers, Leafs, Flyers and Wings might increase their budgets to $120m and pack them full of stars being paid $10m each. Not sure how they'd pay for it though. These teams would get a $2-5 million more in TV revenue each, of course they'd lose a round of the playoffs and only 1/2 the teams would make it (16 team league logically leads to an 8 team playoffs over 3 rounds).

I just found an interesting article concerning stikes in the CBA. I can't see how the NHL would not insist on a similar article in any new CBA...

ARTICLE 7
No Strike, No Discrimination and Other Undertakings
7.1. (a) Neither the NHLPA nor any player shall authorize, encourage, or engage in any strike, work stoppage, slowdown or other concerted interference with the activities of any Club or of the League during the term of this Agreement. Nor shall any player decline to play or practice or in concert with any other person otherwise interfere with the activities of any Club or the League, or individually or in concert encourage any other player to do so because of picketing or a labor dispute involving any other labor organization. The NHLPA shall not support or condone any action of any player which is not in accordance with this Section 7.01 and the NHLPA shall exert reasonable efforts to induce compliance therewith.

(b) Neither the League nor any Club shall engage in a lockout during the term of this Agreement.

I doubt they could enforce that in an impasse CBA-equivalent document. Both sides agreed to it in the old CBA. The NHLPA have legal rights to strike and I very much doubt the owners can take that away without the players agreement.

I doubt they could enforce that in an impasse CBA-equivalent document. Both sides agreed to it in the old CBA. The NHLPA have legal rights to strike and I very much doubt the owners can't take that away without the players agreement.

I'm just thinking that before they open the doors to any players, they will have a signed agreement from players that they agree to be bound by the imposed rules for a set period of time, maybe a year or two, otherwise if the player does not sign, they will still be out on strike.

The ramifications of that would be that if someone signed that agreement, then went on strike, they would be in breach of contract.

I can't think of any way the NHL would allow any players in the door unless they had a signed agreement that they will play under the imposed rules pending the legal challenges and continued negotiations.

Replacement players brings an entirely new issue to the situation. Let's say the league does decide to say "F The NHLPA" and brings in replacement players. As a result, the NHLPA either gives in and agrees to a deal or its' members bolt to a new players union that settles a new CBA with the league. Say some of these "scabs" are actually good enough to be signed to deals under the new CBA. The union may not allow those players to join the union as they were "scabs", and many of their fellow players treat them like dirt because they were a "scab". Even though the MLB attempt at replacement players lasted for part of Spring Training, a few of those players eventually did get onto MLB rosters and pretty much got the cold shoulder from their teammates because of they were replacement players.

As for the Canadian laws against replacement workers, the Canadian teams could just temporary pull up stakes and move down to the states and operate. I'm not sure if it's legal or not to do, they could just create a new corporate entity to operate as an NHL franchise, like Habs Hockey Club, dba Montreal Canadiens.